Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 115, Issue 1–3, pp 145–173 | Cite as

Status of the Riparian Ecosystem in the Upper San Pedro River, Arizona: Application of an Assessment Model

  • Juliet C. Stromberg
  • Sharon J. Lite
  • Tyler J. Rychener
  • Lainie R. Levick
  • Mark D. Dixon
  • Joseph M. Watts


A portion of Arizona’s San Pedro River is managed as a National Riparian Conservation Area but is potentially affected by ground-water withdrawals beyond the conservation area borders. We applied an assessment model to the Conservation Area as a basis for monitoring long-term changes in riparian ecosystem condition resulting from changes in river water availability, and collected multi-year data on a subset of the most sensitive bioindicators. The assessment model is based on nine vegetation bioindicators that are sensitive to changes in surface water or ground water. Site index scores allow for placement into one of three condition classes, each reflecting particular ranges for site hydrology and vegetation structure. We collected the bioindicator data at 26 sites distributed among 14 reaches that had similar stream flow hydrology (spatial flow intermittency) and geomorphology (channel sinuosity, flood-plain width). Overall, 39% of the riparian corridor fell within condition class 3 (the wettest condition), 55% in condition class 2, and 6% in the driest condition class. Condition class 3 reaches have high cover of herbaceous wetland plants (e.g., Juncus and Schoenoplectus spp.) along the perennial stream channel and dense, multi-aged Populus-Salix woodlands in the flood plain, sustained by shallow ground water in the stream alluvium. In condition class 2, intermittent stream flows result in low cover of streamside wetland herbs, but Populus-Salix remain abundant in the flood plain. Perennial wetland plants are absent from condition class 1, reflecting highly intermittent stream flows; the flood plain is vegetated by Tamarixa small tree that tolerates the deep and fluctuating ground water levels that typify this reach type. Abundance of herbaceous wetland plants and growth rate of Salix gooddingii varied between years with different stream flow rates, indicating utility of these measures for tracking short-term responses to hydrologic change. Repeat measurement of all bioindicators will indicate long-term trends in hydro-vegetational condition.


assessment arid region stream bioindicator ecosystem condition ground water riparian vegetation Salix gooddingii 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arias, H. M.: 2000, ‘International groundwaters: The Upper San Pedro River basin case’, Natural Resources J. 40, 199–221.Google Scholar
  2. Bagstad, K. J., Lite, S. J. and Stromberg, J. C.: In press, ‘Vegetation, soils and hydrogeomorphology of riparian patch types of a dryland river’, Western North American Naturalist.Google Scholar
  3. Bisson, P. and Montgomery, D. R.: 1996, ‘Valley Segments, Stream Reaches and Channel Units’, In: F. R. Hauer and G. A. Lamberti (eds.), Methods in Stream Ecology, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 23–52.Google Scholar
  4. Brinson, M. M., Hauer, F. R., Lee, L. C., Nutter, W. L., Rheinhardt, R. D., Smith, R. D. and Whigham, D.: 1995, ‘A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands’, Technical Report WRP-DE-11, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.Google Scholar
  5. Browning-Aiken, A., Varady, R. and Moreno, D.: 2003, ‘Water-resources management in the San Pedro basin: Building binational alliances’, J. Southwest 45, 611–632.Google Scholar
  6. Busch, D. E. and Smith, S. D.: 1995, ‘Mechanisms associated with the decline of woody species in riparian ecosystems of the Southwestern U.S.’, Ecol. Monographs 65, 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, W., Shrestha, R., Tuell, G., Bloomquist, D. and Sartori, M.: 2001, ‘Airborne laser swath mapping shines new light on earth’s topography’, EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 82, 549–555.Google Scholar
  8. Crandall, K., Colby, B. and Rait, K. A.: 1992, ‘Valuing riparian preserves: A Southwestern case study’, Rivers 3, 88–98.Google Scholar
  9. Elmore, A. J., Mustard, J. F. and Manning, S. J.: 2003, ‘Regional patterns of plant community response to changes in water: Owens Valley, California’, Ecol. Appl. 13, 443–460.Google Scholar
  10. Fleming, W., Galt, D. and Holechek, J.: 2001, ‘Ten steps to evaluate rangeland riparian health’, Rangelands 23, 22–27.Google Scholar
  11. Frissell, C. A., Liss, W. J., Warren, C. E. and Hurley, M. D.: 1986, ‘A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification’, Environ. Manage. 10, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glenn, E. P. and Nagler, P. L.: 2005, ‘Comparative ecophysiology of Tamarix ramosissima and native trees in western U.S. riparian zones’, J. Arid Environ. 61, 419–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glenn, E. P., Zamora-Arroyo, F., Nagler, P. L., Briggs, M., Shaw, W. and Flessa, K.: 2001, ‘Ecology and conservation biology of the Colorado River delta, Mexico’, J. Arid Environ. 49, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goode, T. C. and Maddock III, T.: 2000, ‘Simulation of Groundwater Conditions in the Upper San Pedro Basin for the Evaluation of Alternative Futures’, University of Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, HWR-00-030, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  15. Goodrich, D. C., Scott, R., Qi, J., Goff, B., Unkrich, C. L., Moran, M. S., Williams D., Schaeffer, S., Snyder, K., MacNish, R., Maddock, T., Pool, D., Chehbouni, A., Cooper, D., Eichinger, W., Shuttleworth, W., Kerr, Y., Marsett, W. and Ni, W.: 2000, ‘Seasonal estimates of riparian evapotranspiration using remote and in-situ measurements’, J. Agricult. Forest Meteor. 105, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graf, W. L.: 1988, Fluvial Processes in Dryland Rivers, Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Graf, W. L. and Randall, K.: 1998, ‘A Guidance Document for Monitoring and Assessing the Physical Integrity of Arizona Streams’, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality unpublished document, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
  18. Gray, S. T., Betancourt, J. L., Fastie, C. L. and Jackson, S. T.: 2003, ‘Patterns and sources of multidecadal oscillations in drought-sensitive tree-ring records from the central and southern Rocky Mountains’, Geophys. Res. Letters 30, 491–494.Google Scholar
  19. Haney, J. A. 2002.: ‘Groundwater modeling and biodiversity conservation on the Lower San Pedro River’, Southwest Hydrol. 1, 8.Google Scholar
  20. Hereford, R.: 1993, ‘Entrenchment and Widening of the Upper San Pedro River, Arizona, Special Paper 282’, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  21. Horton, J. L., Kolb, T. E. and Hart, S. C.: 2001, ‘Responses of riparian trees to interannual variation in ground water depth in a semi-arid river basin’, Plant, Cell Environ. 24, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horton, J. S.: 1964, ‘Notes on the introduction of deciduous tamarisk’, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Research Note RM-16, 1–7.Google Scholar
  23. Innis, S. A., Naiman, R. J. and Elliott, S. R.: 2000, ‘Indicators and Assessment Methods for Measuring the Ecological Integrity of Semi-Aquatic Terrestrial Environments’, Hydrobiologica 422/423, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jansen, A. and Roberstson, A. I.: 2001, ‘Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river’, J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, G. D., Strickland, M. D., Buyok, J. P., Derby, C. E. and Young, D. P.: 1999, ‘Quantifying impacts to riparian wetlands associated with reduced flows along the Greybull River, Wyoming’, Wetlands 19, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Judd, J. B., Laughlin, J. M., Guenther, H. R. and Handergrade, R.: 1971, ‘The lethal decline of mesquite on the Casa Grande National Monument’, Great Basin Naturalist 31, 153–159.Google Scholar
  27. Karr, J. R.: 1991, ‘Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management’, Ecol. Appl. 1, 66–84.Google Scholar
  28. Karr, J. R. and Chu, E. W.: 1999, Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Kepner, W. G., Semmens, D. J., Bassett, S. D., Mouat, D. A. and Goodrich, D. C.: 2004, ‘Scenario analysis for the San Pedro River, analyzing hydrological consequences of a future environment’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 94, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingsford, R. T.: 2000, ‘Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia’, Austra. Ecol. 25, 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krueper, D., Bart, J. and Rich, T. D.: 2003, ‘Response of vegetation and breeding birds to the removal of cattle on the San Pedro River, Arizona (USA)’, Conserv. Biol. 17, 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leones, J., Colby, B. and Crandall, K.: 1998, ‘Tracking expenditures of the elusive nature tourists of southeastern Arizona’, J. Travel Res. 36, 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lite, S. J. and Stromberg, J. C.: In press, ‘Ground-water and surface water thresholds for maintaining Populus-Salix forests, San Pedro River, Arizona’, Biol. Conserv.Google Scholar
  34. Lite, S. J., Stromberg, J. C. and Bagstad, K. J.: (In review), ‘Riparian vegetation water needs: Stressor-response model for assessing riparian ecosystem condition.’Google Scholar
  35. Mahoney, J. M. and Rood, S. B.: 1998, ‘Streamflow requirements for cottonwood seedling recruitment – An integrative model’, Wetlands 18, 634–645.Google Scholar
  36. Makings, L.: In press, ‘Flora of the San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area’, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  37. Medina, A. L.: 1990, ‘Possible effects of residential development on streamflow, riparian plant communities, and fisheries on small mountain streams in central Arizona’, Forest Ecol. Manage. 33, 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McPherson, G. R.: 1997, Ecology and Management of North American Savannahs, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  39. Munoz-Reinoso, J. C.: 2001, ‘Vegetation changes and groundwater abstraction in SW Donana, Spain’, J. Hydrol. 242, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naiman, R. J., Bunn, S. E., Nilsson, C., Petts, G. E., Pinay, G. and Thompson, L. C.: 2002, ‘Legitimizing fluvial ecosystems as users of water: An overview’, Environ. Manage. 30, 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ohmart, R. D. and Anderson, B. W.: 1982, ‘North American desert riparian ecosystems’, in: G. L. Bender (ed.), Reference Handbook on the Eserts of North America, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 433–479.Google Scholar
  42. Paradzick, C. E. and Woodward, A. A.: 2003, ‘Distribution, abundance, and habitat characteristics of southwestern willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii extimus) in Arizona, 1993–2000’, Studies in Avian Biol. 26: 22–29.Google Scholar
  43. Pavlikakis, G. E. and Tsihrintzis, V. A.: 2003, ‘Integrating humans in ecosystem management using multi-criteria decision making’, J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 39, 277–288.Google Scholar
  44. Pool, D. R. and Coes, A. L.: 1999, ‘Hydrogeologic Investigations of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise County, Southeast Arizona’, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4197.Google Scholar
  45. Prichard, D. et al.: 1993, ‘Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition’, Technical Reference 1737–9, Bureau of Land Management, US Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  46. Pringle, C. M.: 2001, ‘Hydrologic connectivity and the management of biological reserves: A global perspective’, Ecol. Appl. 11, 981–998.Google Scholar
  47. Pringle, C. M.: 2000, ‘Threats to U.S. public lands from cumulative hydrologic alterations outside of their boundaries’, Ecol. Appl. 10, 971–989.Google Scholar
  48. Putnam, F., Mitchell, K. and Busher, G.: 1988, ‘Water Resources of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Arizona’, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Hydrology Division, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
  49. Richter, B. D., Mathews, R., Harrison, D. L. and Wigington, R.: 2003, ‘Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity’, Ecol. Appl. 13, 206–224.Google Scholar
  50. Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Wigington, R. and Braun, D. P.: 1997, ‘How much water does a river need?’ Freshw. Biology 37, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robinson, T. W.: 1965, ‘Introduction, Spread, and Areal Extent of Salt Cedar (Tamarix) in the Western States’, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 491-A, 1–13.Google Scholar
  52. Rood, S. B., Mahoney, J. M., Reid, D. E. and Zilm, L.: 1995, ‘Instream flows and the decline of riparian cottonwoods along the St. Mary River, Alberta’, Can. J. Botany 73, 1250–1260.Google Scholar
  53. Scott, M. L., Shafroth, P. B. and Auble, G. T.: 1999, ‘Responses of riparian cottonwoods to alluvial water table declines’, Environ. Manage. 23, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scott, R. L, Watts, C., Payan, J. G., Edwards, E., Goodrich, D. C., Williams, D. and Shuttleworth, W. J.: 2003, ‘The understory and overstory partitioning of energy and water fluxes in an open canopy, semiarid woodland’, Agricult. Forest Meteor. 114, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott, R. L., Shuttleworth, W. J., Goodrich, D. C. and Maddock, T.: 2000, ‘The water use of two dominant vegetation communities in a semiarid riparian ecosystem’, Agricult. Forest Meteor. 105, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sher, A. A. and Marshall, D. L.: 2003, ‘Seedling competition between native Populus deltoides (Salicaceae) and exotic Tamarix ramosissima (Tamaricaceae) across water regimes and substrate types’, Amer. J. Botany 90, 413–422.Google Scholar
  57. Skagen, S. K., Melcher, C. P., Howe, W. H. and Knopf, F. L.: 1998, ‘Comparative use of riparian corridors and oases by migrating birds in southeast Arizona’, Conserv. Biol. 12, 896–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Snyder, K. A. and Williams, D. G.: 2000, ‘Water sources used by riparian trees varies among stream types on the San Pedro River’, J. Agricult. Forest Meteor. 105, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Springer, A. E., Wright, J. M., Shafroth, P. B., Stromberg, J. C. and Patten, D. T.: 1999, ‘Coupling ground-water and riparian vegetation models to simulate riparian vegetation changes due to a reservoir release’, Water Resources Res. 35, 3621–3630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steinitz, C., Arias, H., Bassett, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Maddock, T. III, Mouat, D., Peiser, R. and Shearer, A.: 2003, Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes- the Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  61. Stromberg, J. C., Bagstad, K. J., Leenhouts, J. M., Lite, S. J. and Makings, E.: 2005, ‘Effects of increased stream flow intermittency on channel vegetation of a semi-arid region river (San Pedro River, Arizona)’, River Res. Appl. 21, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stromberg, J., Briggs, M., Gourley, C., Scott, M., Shafroth, P. and Stevens, L.: 2004a, ‘Human Alterations of Riparian Ecosystems’, In: M. Baker Jr., P. Folliott, L. DeBano and D. G. Neary (eds.), Riparian Areas of the Southwestern United States: Hydrology, Ecology, and Management, Lewis Publishers (CRC Press), Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 101–126.Google Scholar
  63. Stromberg, J., Briggs, M., Scott, M. and Shafroth, P.: 2004b, ‘Riparian Ecosystem Assessments’, In: M. Baker Jr., P. Folliott, L. DeBano and D. G. Neary (eds.), Riparian Areas of the Southwestern United States: Hydrology, Ecology, and Management, Lewis Publishers (CRC Press), Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 314–329.Google Scholar
  64. Stromberg, J. C. and Patten, D. T.: 1990, ‘Riparian vegetation instream flow requirements: A case study from a diverted stream in the eastern Sierra Nevada, California’, Environ. Manage. 14, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stromberg, J.: 1998. ‘Dynamics of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis) populations along the San Pedro River, Arizona’, J. Arid Environ. 40, 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tabacchi, E., Lambs, L., Guilloy, H., Planty-Tabacchi, A. M., Muller, E. and Decamps, H.: 2000, ‘Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes’, Hydrol. Processes 14, 2959–2976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tockner, K. and Stanford, J. A.: 2002, ‘Riverine flood plains: Present state and future trends’, Environ. Conserv. 29, 308–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Turner, R. M.: 1974, ‘Quantitative and Historical Evidence of Vegetation Changes Along the Upper Gila River, Arizona’, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 655-H, 1–20.Google Scholar
  69. Turpie, J. and Joubert, A.: 2001, ‘Estimating potential impacts of a change in river quality on the tourism value of Kruger National Park: An application of travel cost, contingent and conjoint valuation methods’, Water SA 27, 387–398.Google Scholar
  70. U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center: 2001, Vegetation Map of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area and Babocomari River, Final Report, submitted to U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.Google Scholar
  71. USDA-NRCS: 2002, The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5, Available at, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge.
  72. Vionnet, L. B. and Maddock, T.: 1992, Modeling of Ground-Water Flow and Surface Water/Ground-Water Interactions in the San Pedro River basin, Part I, Mexican border to Fairbank, Arizona, University of Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Report 92-010, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  73. Whiting, P. J.: 2002, ‘Streamflow necessary for environmental maintenance’, Ann. Rev. Earth Planetary Sci. 30, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Willms, J., Rood, S. B., Willms, W. and Tyree, M.: 1998, ‘Branch growth of riparian cottonwoods: A hydrologically sensitive dendrochronological tool’, Trees 12, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yuncevich, G. M.: 1993, ‘The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area’, in: B. Tellman, H. J. Cortner, M. G. Wallace, L. F. DeBano and R. H. Hamre, technical coordinators, Riparian Management: Common Threads and Shared Interests. A Western Regional Conference on River Management Strategies, Feb 4–6; Albuquerque, NM, General Technical Report RM-226, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado, pp. 369–372.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliet C. Stromberg
    • 1
  • Sharon J. Lite
    • 1
  • Tyler J. Rychener
    • 1
  • Lainie R. Levick
    • 2
  • Mark D. Dixon
    • 1
  • Joseph M. Watts
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempe ArizonaUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARS Southwest Watershed Research CenterTucson ArizonaUSA
  3. 3.US Army Engineer Research and Development CenterTopographic Engineering CenterAlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations